Roman Catholics in England and Wales are today to return to an old practice which had fallen by the wayside. They will be asked to abstain from eating meat, as a commemoration of the day Christ was crucified. Pope Benedict XVI announced the plan months ago; it is scheduled to begin today.

From the article:

Quote

Those aged under 14, the sick, elderly, pregnant women, seafarers, manual workers or others in situations where there are moral or physical reasons for eating meat are excused from abstaining.

The Catholic Church defines meat as the flesh of warm-blooded animals, so eating fish is permitted on Fridays.

Logged

He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

Slowly and not really surely.... but most moves as of late have been in the right direction...but big freaking deal. A little over 40 years ago the church would be unrecognizable to all but traditionalists for the most part. Now one is like a salmon to get back to where we should be in the first place. Well VII did make us much more open to the Orthodox Church so it wasnt ALL bad (mostly but not all).

Slowly and not really surely.... but most moves as of late have been in the right direction...but big freaking deal. A little over 40 years ago the church would be unrecognizable to all but traditionalists for the most part. Now one is like a salmon to get back to where we should be in the first place. Well VII did make us much more open to the Orthodox Church so it wasnt ALL bad (mostly but not all).

We definitely have a long way to go. This is why Catholics need to stand firm in the practice of the traditional Catholic Faith.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

I think most traditionalists practiced this anyway. I did. Now I do the strict Orthodox fast. Stuff isnt fun. I am somewhat active and its difficult to find inexpensive protein sources during the fast. I will eat crab and shrimp but like I said I cant afford that twice a week. I used to think the no meat thing was difficult, now doing the Orthodox fast I see it isnt bad at all. No cereal(no milk that is...), no eggs, no fish, no cheese... For the Love of our Savior your making me a please use nicer language next time. Also it isn't "your" it is you're or you are. Act accordingly please -username section moderatorvegan...

I think most traditionalists practiced this anyway. I did. Now I do the strict Orthodox fast. Stuff isnt fun. I am somewhat active and its difficult to find inexpensive protein sources during the fast. I will eat crab and shrimp but like I said I cant afford that twice a week. I used to think the no meat thing was difficult, now doing the Orthodox fast I see it isnt bad at all. No cereal(no milk that is...), no eggs, no fish, no cheese... For the Love of our Savior your making me a queer ass vegan...

Why is abstention from meat on Friday only for Roman Catholics of England and Wales? Are there not Catholics in other countries, especially Italy?

In Catholicism you do not have a top-down approach where someone gives marching orders for their entire Church spread across the globe. Thus, unlike Orthodoxy, in Catholicism each bishop or synod of bishops has some autonomy to do as they like, without their decisions necessarily binding other local Church bodies to do the same.

Why is abstention from meat on Friday only for Roman Catholics of England and Wales? Are there not Catholics in other countries, especially Italy?

In Catholicism you do not have a top-down approach where someone gives marching orders for their entire Church spread across the globe. Thus, unlike Orthodoxy, in Catholicism each bishop or synod of bishops has some autonomy to do as they like, without their decisions necessarily binding other local Church bodies to do the same.

Is this something new? Or has it always been this way?

I thought that "Catholic" meant universal, as in universal practices and traditions. Guess I was mistaken.

Why is abstention from meat on Friday only for Roman Catholics of England and Wales? Are there not Catholics in other countries, especially Italy?

In Catholicism you do not have a top-down approach where someone gives marching orders for their entire Church spread across the globe. Thus, unlike Orthodoxy, in Catholicism each bishop or synod of bishops has some autonomy to do as they like, without their decisions necessarily binding other local Church bodies to do the same.

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Why is abstention from meat on Friday only for Roman Catholics of England and Wales? Are there not Catholics in other countries, especially Italy?

In Catholicism you do not have a top-down approach where someone gives marching orders for their entire Church spread across the globe. Thus, unlike Orthodoxy, in Catholicism each bishop or synod of bishops has some autonomy to do as they like, without their decisions necessarily binding other local Church bodies to do the same.

Is this something new? Or has it always been this way?

I thought that "Catholic" meant universal, as in universal practices and traditions. Guess I was mistaken.

Are you joking? Good heavens, it has always been that local sees make local decisions. Why do you think Trent was necessary? There was such a multitude of variant liturgical practices and local cults of saints that it would have been impossible to tell the faithful from the schismatics based on liturgical practice and calendar. So it was all "regularized"...but that didn't fix everything and so here we are going back the other direction. By that I mean that the Carmelites and Dominicans and Franciscans are all working to re-vitalize their old liturgies that were their own, for example. It's called "balance"...

No. The Catholic Church in reality nowhere near as rigidly centralized as Orthodoxy...never was...never will be.

Why is abstention from meat on Friday only for Roman Catholics of England and Wales? Are there not Catholics in other countries, especially Italy?

In Catholicism you do not have a top-down approach where someone gives marching orders for their entire Church spread across the globe. Thus, unlike Orthodoxy, in Catholicism each bishop or synod of bishops has some autonomy to do as they like, without their decisions necessarily binding other local Church bodies to do the same.

Is this something new? Or has it always been this way?

I thought that "Catholic" meant universal, as in universal practices and traditions. Guess I was mistaken.

Are you joking? Good heavens, it has always been that local sees make local decisions. Why do you think Trent was necessary? There was such a multitude of variant liturgical practices and local cults of saints that it would have been impossible to tell the faithful from the schismatics based on liturgical practice and calendar. So it was all "regularized"...but that didn't fix everything and so here we are going back the other direction. By that I mean that the Carmelites and Dominicans and Franciscans are all working to re-vitalize their old liturgies that were their own, for example. It's called "balance"...

No. The Catholic Church in reality nowhere near as rigidly centralized as Orthodoxy...never was...never will be.

Did you actually write that last statement with a straight face? It's B.S. and if you don't know it, I pity you.

And if this is a local matter, why is the Pope, the Universal Head of the Catholic Church, directing only those in Wales and England? Why did he bypass the local bishops? Something isn't adding up.

Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

Why is abstention from meat on Friday only for Roman Catholics of England and Wales? Are there not Catholics in other countries, especially Italy?

In Catholicism you do not have a top-down approach where someone gives marching orders for their entire Church spread across the globe. Thus, unlike Orthodoxy, in Catholicism each bishop or synod of bishops has some autonomy to do as they like, without their decisions necessarily binding other local Church bodies to do the same.

Is this something new? Or has it always been this way?

I thought that "Catholic" meant universal, as in universal practices and traditions. Guess I was mistaken.

Are you joking? Good heavens, it has always been that local sees make local decisions. Why do you think Trent was necessary? There was such a multitude of variant liturgical practices and local cults of saints that it would have been impossible to tell the faithful from the schismatics based on liturgical practice and calendar. So it was all "regularized"...but that didn't fix everything and so here we are going back the other direction. By that I mean that the Carmelites and Dominicans and Franciscans are all working to re-vitalize their old liturgies that were their own, for example. It's called "balance"...

No. The Catholic Church in reality nowhere near as rigidly centralized as Orthodoxy...never was...never will be.

Did you actually write that last statement with a straight face? It's B.S. and if you don't know it, I pity you.

And if this is a local matter, why is the Pope, the Universal Head of the Catholic Church, directing only those in Wales and England? Why did he bypass the local bishops? Something isn't adding up.

I mean what I wrote sincerely. The real pity is that you can't see it.

Also you didn't "see" that article very well. The order to return to the days of fast and abstinence came from the local bishops...

In Catholicism you do not have a top-down approach where someone gives marching orders for their entire Church spread across the globe. Thus, unlike Orthodoxy, in Catholicism each bishop or synod of bishops has some autonomy to do as they like, without their decisions necessarily binding other local Church bodies to do the same.

And I'm not wrong. Do you deny that the Pope is the Universal Head of the Roman church?

I call many people dear-heart. Was never meant to be patronizing.

And you are wrong. You have no idea how decentralized the Catholic Church is in practice. Or you simply refuse to see it. Frankly, at this point, I don't care which. But it is important for others reading here, particularly Catholics, to have someone point out to them that the parish is the primary unit and then the diocese and then the Vatican...in that order of their line of "sight"...I just sat here reading the local diocesan newspaper weekly and I can tell you that the center of spiritual and teaching power in the Catholic Church is the bishop. If you only read propaganda and national news then you miss the real life of the Catholic Church.

Why is abstention from meat on Friday only for Roman Catholics of England and Wales? Are there not Catholics in other countries, especially Italy?

In Catholicism you do not have a top-down approach where someone gives marching orders for their entire Church spread across the globe. Thus, unlike Orthodoxy, in Catholicism each bishop or synod of bishops has some autonomy to do as they like, without their decisions necessarily binding other local Church bodies to do the same.

Is this something new? Or has it always been this way?

I thought that "Catholic" meant universal, as in universal practices and traditions. Guess I was mistaken.

If different Orthodox jurisdictions have variations in their fasting rules, why is it inconsistent for Rome to allow variations within her own jurisdictions? Do our own jurisdictional discrepencies mean that we are not Catholic?

In Catholicism you do not have a top-down approach where someone gives marching orders for their entire Church spread across the globe. Thus, unlike Orthodoxy, in Catholicism each bishop or synod of bishops has some autonomy to do as they like, without their decisions necessarily binding other local Church bodies to do the same.

Now this is the statement that got me scratching my head.... "remove those communion rails! Say this all spoken banal liturgy with folk song hymns!" Yes that was the impetus of individual bishops tending their flock on their own... the thing where Orthodox do not vary is the Liturgy. They do not allow for such abuses. Administratively they seem to have great freedom. They dont have to ask the pope who to ordain to be bishop for instance. This statement is totally backward if you ask me. Perhaps it was done in jest.

In Catholicism you do not have a top-down approach where someone gives marching orders for their entire Church spread across the globe. Thus, unlike Orthodoxy, in Catholicism each bishop or synod of bishops has some autonomy to do as they like, without their decisions necessarily binding other local Church bodies to do the same.

Now this is the statement that got me scratching my head.... "remove those communion rails! Say this all spoken banal liturgy with folk song hymns!" Yes that was the impetus of individual bishops tending their flock on their own... the thing where Orthodox do not vary is the Liturgy. They do not allow for such abuses. Administratively they seem to have great freedom. They dont have to ask the pope who to ordain to be bishop for instance. This statement is totally backward if you ask me. Perhaps it was done in jest.

If different Orthodox jurisdictions have variations in their fasting rules, why is it inconsistent for Rome to allow variations within her own jurisdictions? Do our own jurisdictional discrepencies mean that we are not Catholic?[/quote]

Well the problem is that fasting is a tradition that had been spayed and neutered in the west. It wasnt really a case of freedom, its more like an abolishment.

If different Orthodox jurisdictions have variations in their fasting rules, why is it inconsistent for Rome to allow variations within her own jurisdictions? Do our own jurisdictional discrepencies mean that we are not Catholic?[/quote]

Well the problem is that fasting is a tradition that had been spayed and neutered in the west. It wasnt really a case of freedom, its more like an abolishment. [/quote]

Yes. And that happened at the behest of the bishops of the universal Church who thought that the faithful ought to be treated like adults and instead of having their penitential lives dictated to them, they were to bear that responsibilities on their own shoulders. If work and parenting and the stresses of urban living precluded periods of heavy fast and abstinence then it was incumbent upon the faithful to develop penitential practices that were truly penitential and could be actually done and not just talked about or substituted for so that it would not be TOO taxing.

Again another instance where the universal Catholic Church is far less centralized than Orthodoxy.

If different Orthodox jurisdictions have variations in their fasting rules, why is it inconsistent for Rome to allow variations within her own jurisdictions? Do our own jurisdictional discrepencies mean that we are not Catholic?

Well the problem is that fasting is a tradition that had been spayed and neutered in the west. It wasnt really a case of freedom, its more like an abolishment.

Right, the abolishment of fasting rules was obviously a case of top-down autocracy. I was simply criticizing the comment implying that catholicity means an intolerance of any pluralism.

If different Orthodox jurisdictions have variations in their fasting rules, why is it inconsistent for Rome to allow variations within her own jurisdictions? Do our own jurisdictional discrepencies mean that we are not Catholic?

Well the problem is that fasting is a tradition that had been spayed and neutered in the west. It wasnt really a case of freedom, its more like an abolishment.

Yes. And that happened at the behest of the bishops of the universal Church who thought that the faithful ought to be treated like adults and instead of having their penitential lives dictated to them, they were to bear that responsibilities on their own shoulders. If work and parenting and the stresses of urban living precluded periods of heavy fast and abstinence then it was incumbent upon the faithful to develop penitential practices that were truly penitential and could be actually done and not just talked about or substituted for so that it would not be TOO taxing.

Again another instance where the universal Catholic Church is far less centralized than Orthodoxy.

With what stringency were fasting rules expected to be followed in the RCC prior to the reforms?

If different Orthodox jurisdictions have variations in their fasting rules, why is it inconsistent for Rome to allow variations within her own jurisdictions? Do our own jurisdictional discrepencies mean that we are not Catholic?

Well the problem is that fasting is a tradition that had been spayed and neutered in the west. It wasnt really a case of freedom, its more like an abolishment.

Right, the abolishment of fasting rules was obviously a case of top-down autocracy. I was simply criticizing the comment implying that catholicity means an intolerance of any pluralism.

They were never "abolished." They were opened up so that people could choose what penitential and ascetic practices that best suited their lives. I live in an area where Catholic families still abstain on Wednesdays and Fridays, where they keep the Advent fast and the Lenten fast and where they and their children work out other kinds of penitential acts to be done individually or as a family. Apparently we don't hear much from those folks...however these are also the people who take VERY seriously the counsel NOT to make a public or a private issue of their penitential lives and prayer lives. They remain hidden and a whole Church suffers the slings and arrows. That is also a penance.

If different Orthodox jurisdictions have variations in their fasting rules, why is it inconsistent for Rome to allow variations within her own jurisdictions? Do our own jurisdictional discrepencies mean that we are not Catholic?

Well the problem is that fasting is a tradition that had been spayed and neutered in the west. It wasnt really a case of freedom, its more like an abolishment.

Yes. And that happened at the behest of the bishops of the universal Church who thought that the faithful ought to be treated like adults and instead of having their penitential lives dictated to them, they were to bear that responsibilities on their own shoulders. If work and parenting and the stresses of urban living precluded periods of heavy fast and abstinence then it was incumbent upon the faithful to develop penitential practices that were truly penitential and could be actually done and not just talked about or substituted for so that it would not be TOO taxing.

Again another instance where the universal Catholic Church is far less centralized than Orthodoxy.

With what stringency were fasting rules expected to be followed in the RCC prior to the reforms?

It was sinful not to follow, in obedience, ALL the rules set down by the bishops. The sin was disobedience and not lack-of-fasting or some such. It remains the same. If people do NOT lead lives of prayer, almsgiving and sacrifice as their bishops have instructed, then they sin in disobedience.

Those bishops who FAIL to teach then bear the greater brunt of the sin.

If different Orthodox jurisdictions have variations in their fasting rules, why is it inconsistent for Rome to allow variations within her own jurisdictions? Do our own jurisdictional discrepencies mean that we are not Catholic?

Well the problem is that fasting is a tradition that had been spayed and neutered in the west. It wasnt really a case of freedom, its more like an abolishment.

Right, the abolishment of fasting rules was obviously a case of top-down autocracy. I was simply criticizing the comment implying that catholicity means an intolerance of any pluralism.

And in Orthodoxy, we see diversity in unity where there are different chants, different languages, and different calendars of saints. We see unity in the things that are essential, and fasting is very essential to help us to say "no" to sin.

Rome only went to the vernacular worldwide after Vatican II. Before Vatican II, during World War II Germany was experimenting with the vernacular as approved by the local Bishops there. However, before WW I, Mass in the vernacular was almost unheard of.

However, within Catholicism (from my own experience in Los Angeles), if a member dared to fast (even secretly) and was observed eating freshly caught and cooked fish at a coastal restaurant, they were accused of being "holier than the Pope." So, yes, more lenient fasting rules were pushed from the top down after Vatican II. Dominican Tertiaries still fasted and abstained on Wednesdays and Fridays after Vatican II, but they were still criticized.

If different Orthodox jurisdictions have variations in their fasting rules, why is it inconsistent for Rome to allow variations within her own jurisdictions? Do our own jurisdictional discrepencies mean that we are not Catholic?

Well the problem is that fasting is a tradition that had been spayed and neutered in the west. It wasnt really a case of freedom, its more like an abolishment.

Yes. And that happened at the behest of the bishops of the universal Church who thought that the faithful ought to be treated like adults and instead of having their penitential lives dictated to them, they were to bear that responsibilities on their own shoulders. If work and parenting and the stresses of urban living precluded periods of heavy fast and abstinence then it was incumbent upon the faithful to develop penitential practices that were truly penitential and could be actually done and not just talked about or substituted for so that it would not be TOO taxing.

Again another instance where the universal Catholic Church is far less centralized than Orthodoxy.

With what stringency were fasting rules expected to be followed in the RCC prior to the reforms?

It was sinful not to follow, in obedience, ALL the rules set down by the bishops. The sin was disobedience and not lack-of-fasting or some such. It remains the same. If people do NOT lead lives of prayer, almsgiving and sacrifice as their bishops have instructed, then they sin in disobedience.

Those bishops who FAIL to teach then bear the greater brunt of the sin.

M.

OK. In the Orthodox Church, in most jurisdictions/areas, it is not normal for the majority of people to follow the fasts strictly, if at all. Hence there is a discrepency between what is expected on paper and what is actually expected in practice. Of course, in Western culture in general (not just in the Church), what is written on paper can typically be taken very literally.

So, the comparison between the Orthodox and RC fasting rules that exist on paper is really quite nonsensical. The Orthodox rules certainly do not constitute bishops dictating people's penitential lives. The RC ones evidently used to, but not anymore.

However, within Catholicism (from my own experience in Los Angeles), if a member dared to fast (even secretly) and was observed eating freshly caught and cooked fish at a coastal restaurant, they were accused of being "holier than the Pope." So, yes, more lenient fasting rules were pushed from the top down after Vatican II. Dominican Tertiaries still fasted and abstained on Wednesdays and Fridays after Vatican II, but they were still criticized.

The change in fasting requirements came from the BISHOPS and AFTER the council was closed. So I don't know what you mean by "top" down. Again you make the point clearly that not all practices are highly centralized in the Catholic Church...even the nebishers are decentralized geographically.

If different Orthodox jurisdictions have variations in their fasting rules, why is it inconsistent for Rome to allow variations within her own jurisdictions? Do our own jurisdictional discrepencies mean that we are not Catholic?

Well the problem is that fasting is a tradition that had been spayed and neutered in the west. It wasnt really a case of freedom, its more like an abolishment.

Yes. And that happened at the behest of the bishops of the universal Church who thought that the faithful ought to be treated like adults and instead of having their penitential lives dictated to them, they were to bear that responsibilities on their own shoulders. If work and parenting and the stresses of urban living precluded periods of heavy fast and abstinence then it was incumbent upon the faithful to develop penitential practices that were truly penitential and could be actually done and not just talked about or substituted for so that it would not be TOO taxing.

Again another instance where the universal Catholic Church is far less centralized than Orthodoxy.

With what stringency were fasting rules expected to be followed in the RCC prior to the reforms?

It was sinful not to follow, in obedience, ALL the rules set down by the bishops. The sin was disobedience and not lack-of-fasting or some such. It remains the same. If people do NOT lead lives of prayer, almsgiving and sacrifice as their bishops have instructed, then they sin in disobedience.

Those bishops who FAIL to teach then bear the greater brunt of the sin.

M.

OK. In the Orthodox Church, in most jurisdictions/areas, it is not normal for the majority of people to follow the fasts strictly, if at all. Hence there is a discrepency between what is expected on paper and what is actually expected in practice. Of course, in Western culture in general (not just in the Church), what is written on paper can typically be taken very literally.

So, the comparison between the Orthodox and RC fasting rules that exist on paper is really quite nonsensical. The Orthodox rules certainly do not constitute bishops dictating people's penitential lives. The RC ones evidently used to, but not anymore.

Nevertheless, in Orthodoxy, one is not accused of being "holier than Mt. Athos monks" when they observe the fasting rules.Oh, yes, some have been accused of being uber orthodox. Yet, within Catholicism, that phrase of being "holier than the Pope" had been lobbed at many Catholics who try to live devout lives. It is an insidious phrase that surely must please Screwtape.

Now this is the statement that got me scratching my head.... "remove those communion rails! Say this all spoken banal liturgy with folk song hymns!" Yes that was the impetus of individual bishops tending their flock on their own... the thing where Orthodox do not vary is the Liturgy. They do not allow for such abuses. Administratively they seem to have great freedom. They dont have to ask the pope who to ordain to be bishop for instance. This statement is totally backward if you ask me. Perhaps it was done in jest.

Sorry, it was sort of in jest, but also sort of an attempt to go down a path that would make people say "wait a minute..." and think about why what I said was either right or wrong.

If different Orthodox jurisdictions have variations in their fasting rules, why is it inconsistent for Rome to allow variations within her own jurisdictions? Do our own jurisdictional discrepencies mean that we are not Catholic?

Well the problem is that fasting is a tradition that had been spayed and neutered in the west. It wasnt really a case of freedom, its more like an abolishment.

Yes. And that happened at the behest of the bishops of the universal Church who thought that the faithful ought to be treated like adults and instead of having their penitential lives dictated to them, they were to bear that responsibilities on their own shoulders. If work and parenting and the stresses of urban living precluded periods of heavy fast and abstinence then it was incumbent upon the faithful to develop penitential practices that were truly penitential and could be actually done and not just talked about or substituted for so that it would not be TOO taxing.

Again another instance where the universal Catholic Church is far less centralized than Orthodoxy.

With what stringency were fasting rules expected to be followed in the RCC prior to the reforms?

It was sinful not to follow, in obedience, ALL the rules set down by the bishops. The sin was disobedience and not lack-of-fasting or some such. It remains the same. If people do NOT lead lives of prayer, almsgiving and sacrifice as their bishops have instructed, then they sin in disobedience.

Those bishops who FAIL to teach then bear the greater brunt of the sin.

M.

OK. In the Orthodox Church, in most jurisdictions/areas, it is not normal for the majority of people to follow the fasts strictly, if at all. Hence there is a discrepency between what is expected on paper and what is actually expected in practice. Of course, in Western culture in general (not just in the Church), what is written on paper can typically be taken very literally.

So, the comparison between the Orthodox and RC fasting rules that exist on paper is really quite nonsensical. The Orthodox rules certainly do not constitute bishops dictating people's penitential lives. The RC ones evidently used to, but not anymore.

So it is all right for people to disobey their bishops in Orthodoxy, I presume from what you are saying here.

However, within Catholicism (from my own experience in Los Angeles), if a member dared to fast (even secretly) and was observed eating freshly caught and cooked fish at a coastal restaurant, they were accused of being "holier than the Pope." So, yes, more lenient fasting rules were pushed from the top down after Vatican II. Dominican Tertiaries still fasted and abstained on Wednesdays and Fridays after Vatican II, but they were still criticized.

The change in fasting requirements came from the BISHOPS and AFTER the council was closed. So I don't know what you mean by "top" down. Again you make the point clearly that not all practices are highly centralized in the Catholic Church...even the nebishers are decentralized geographically.

In Orthodoxy, I have never heard a Bishop or a Priest say that fasting is not essential.

On the contrary, Priests and Bishops have unanimously stated that if one refuses to fast and pray, then one should abstain from receiving Holy Communion. Indeed, many Orthodox Priests will read a statement before distributing Holy Communion that those who are not Orthodox or who have not fasted and prayed and received Holy Confession recently (as directed by their confessor) should not approach Holy Communion at this time.

If different Orthodox jurisdictions have variations in their fasting rules, why is it inconsistent for Rome to allow variations within her own jurisdictions? Do our own jurisdictional discrepencies mean that we are not Catholic?

Well the problem is that fasting is a tradition that had been spayed and neutered in the west. It wasnt really a case of freedom, its more like an abolishment.

Yes. And that happened at the behest of the bishops of the universal Church who thought that the faithful ought to be treated like adults and instead of having their penitential lives dictated to them, they were to bear that responsibilities on their own shoulders. If work and parenting and the stresses of urban living precluded periods of heavy fast and abstinence then it was incumbent upon the faithful to develop penitential practices that were truly penitential and could be actually done and not just talked about or substituted for so that it would not be TOO taxing.

Again another instance where the universal Catholic Church is far less centralized than Orthodoxy.

With what stringency were fasting rules expected to be followed in the RCC prior to the reforms?

It was sinful not to follow, in obedience, ALL the rules set down by the bishops. The sin was disobedience and not lack-of-fasting or some such. It remains the same. If people do NOT lead lives of prayer, almsgiving and sacrifice as their bishops have instructed, then they sin in disobedience.

Those bishops who FAIL to teach then bear the greater brunt of the sin.

M.

OK. In the Orthodox Church, in most jurisdictions/areas, it is not normal for the majority of people to follow the fasts strictly, if at all. Hence there is a discrepency between what is expected on paper and what is actually expected in practice. Of course, in Western culture in general (not just in the Church), what is written on paper can typically be taken very literally.

So, the comparison between the Orthodox and RC fasting rules that exist on paper is really quite nonsensical. The Orthodox rules certainly do not constitute bishops dictating people's penitential lives. The RC ones evidently used to, but not anymore.

So it is all right for people to disobey their bishops in Orthodoxy, I presume from what you are saying here.

I'm not sure if you're intentionally getting me wrong here. Never in the history of the Orthodox Chruch have fasting rules been enforced with stringency, with the one exception of fasting before Holy Communion. To claim that this constitutes disobedience is really stretching it.